Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Improve soil quality after tree planting (excluding applying fertilizer) One of two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in Australia found that different soil enhancers had mixed effects on tree seedling survival and height, but no effect on tree seedling health. The other found that combinations of soil enhancers did not increase seedling survival, height, diameter or health. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1153https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1153Wed, 18 May 2016 15:12:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance the survival and growth of planted trees We found no evidence for the effect of planting a mixture of tree species to enhance the survival and growth of planted trees. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1159https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1159Wed, 18 May 2016 15:37:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Infect tree seedlings with mycorrhizae We found no evidence for the effect of inoculating tree seedlings with mycorrhizae. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1160https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1160Wed, 18 May 2016 15:40:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce leaf litter to forest stands We found no evidence for the effect of introducing leaf litter to introduce beneficial soil biota on planted trees. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1161https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1161Wed, 18 May 2016 15:41:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain/create buffer zones One site comparison study in Australia found that a forest edge protected by a planted buffer strip had higher canopy cover and lower stem density, but similar understory species richness to an unbuffered forest edge. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1168https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1168Thu, 19 May 2016 08:58:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate existing trees or woods into the landscape of new developments We found no evidence for the effects of incorporating existing trees or woods into the landscape of new developments on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1175Thu, 19 May 2016 10:24:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain/create habitat corridors We found no evidence for the effects of maintaining or creating habitat corridors on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1176https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1176Thu, 19 May 2016 10:26:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce beavers to impede water flow in forest watercourses We found no evidence for the effects of introducing beavers to impede water flow in forest watercourses on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1187https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1187Thu, 19 May 2016 11:46:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Halo ancient trees We captured no evidence for the effects of haloing ancient trees on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1191https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1191Thu, 19 May 2016 11:51:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Imitate natural disturbances by pushing over trees We captured no evidence for the effects of imitating natural disturbances by pushing over trees on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1194https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1194Thu, 19 May 2016 11:55:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manually/mechanically remove native plants We found no evidence for the effects of manually or mechanically removing native plants on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1197https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1197Thu, 19 May 2016 13:12:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage leaf litter development in new planting We found no evidence for the effect of encouraging leaf litter development in new planting on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1204https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1204Thu, 19 May 2016 13:32:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfires We found no evidence for the effects of mechanically removing understory vegetation to reduce wildfires. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1219https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1219Fri, 20 May 2016 14:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically/manually remove invasive plants One replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found that removal of invasive grass species increased understory plant biomass. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found no effect of invasive shrub removal on understory plant diversity. One replicated, controlled study in Ghana found that removal of invasive weed species increased tree seedling height. One replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found no effect of invasive plant removal on growth rate of native species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1228https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1228Mon, 23 May 2016 10:45:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legal protection of forests Two site comparison studies in Nigeria and Iran found that legal protection of forest increased tree species richness and diversity and the density of young trees. One replicated, paired site study in Mexico found no effect of forest protection on seed density and diversity of trees and shrubs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1233https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1233Mon, 23 May 2016 11:25:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees after wildfire We found no evidence for the effects of planting trees after wildfire on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1235https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1235Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:29:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance diversity One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Brazil found that planting various tree species increased species richness, but had no effect on the density of new trees. One replicated, controlled study in Greece found that planting native tree species increased total plant species richness, diversity and cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1243https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1243Fri, 03 Jun 2016 10:43:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance soil compaction Three studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled) in Canada and the USA found that soil compaction decreased tree regeneration height and density. Two of the studies found it increased understory plant cover and density, while one found it decreased understory plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1253https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1253Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:05:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fence to prevent grazing after tree planting Four of five studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Canada , Finland and the USA found that using fences to exclude grazing increased the survival, size and cover of planted trees. Two studies found no effect on tree survival rate and one found mixed effects on planted tree size depending on the structure of the fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1254https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1254Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically remove understory vegetation after tree planting Five studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Canada, the USA, France, Panama and Sweden found no effect of controlling understory vegetation on the emergence, survival, growth rate or frost damage in planted seedlings. However, one found removing competing herbs increased seedling biomass. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that removal of sheep laurel shrubs increased the growth rate and height of planted black spruce seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1256https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1256Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:06:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage woody debris before tree planting One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Canada found that removal of woody debris increased the survival rate of planted trees. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found mixed effects of removing, chopping and burning woody debris on the size of planted trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1257https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1257Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:39:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on non-vascular plants Two of three studies (including one replicated, paired sites study) in Australia, Norway and Sweden found logging trees in forests decreased epiphytic plant abundance and fern fertility. One found mixed effects depending on species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1270https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1270Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:37:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on mature trees Three of seven studies (including two replicated, controlled studies) in Bolivia, Central African Republic, China, Finland, Malaysia, Uganda and the USA found that logging trees in forests decreased the density and cover of trees. Two found it increased tree density and two found no effect of logging on tree density. Three of six studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Bolivia, Canada, China, Kenya, Malaysia and the USA found that logging trees in forests increased tree size. Two found it decreased tree size and one found no effect of logging on tree size. Two of four studies (including one paired site study) in Bolivia, China, Mexico and Papua New Guinea found that logging trees in forests decreased tree species richness and diversity. One study found it increased diversity and one found no effect of logging on tree species diversity. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that logging trees in forests increased tree mortality rate. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1271https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1271Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:55:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on young trees One replicated controlled study in Canada found that logging trees in forests increased the density of young trees. One replicated controlled study in Costa Rica found mixed effects on the density of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1272https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1272Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:18:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on understory plants Five of ten studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Bolivia, Canada, India and the USA found that logging trees in forests increased the density and cover of understory plants. Five studies found no effect or mixed effects. Four of seven studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Australia, Canada and the USA found that logging trees in forests increased species richness and diversity of understory plants. Three studies found no effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1273https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1273Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:29:47 +0100